CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 14 septembre 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBA813D16 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0000ff } .sC90828B6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } 649 14.09.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   21 and 23 September 2010   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 27 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 21 September 2010 and 14 on Thursday 23 September 2010.   Press releases and texts of the judgments will be available at 11 a.m. (local time) on the Court’s Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     Tuesday 21 September 2010   Popa v. Moldova (application no. 29772/05) The applicant, Tatiana Popa, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1976 and lives in Chişinău (Moldova). Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Ms   Popa alleges that she was beaten by the police when arrested and taken to a police station in July 2004 for drunk and disorderly behaviour.   Garzičič v. Montenegro (no. 17931/07) The applicant, Desanka Garzičić, is a Montenegrin national who was born in 1924 and lives in Podgorica (Montenegro). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right of access to court) of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), Ms   Garzičič complains about the Supreme Court’s rejection of her appeal on points of law concerning a property-related claim as it considered that the court fees she had paid did not correspond to the established values of her claim.   Mijušković v. Montenegro (no. 49337/07) The applicant, Svetlana Mijušković, is a Montenegrin national who was born in 1971 and lives in Budva (Montenegro). The case concerns the lengthy non-enforcement of a final judgment awarding the applicant custody of her twins, born in 1998, following her ex-husband’s refusal to return the children to her since January 2005. She also complains that a prior interim custody order was not enforced either. The children were finally surrendered to the applicant in November 2009. She relies on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Deeg v. Poland (no. 39489/08) The applicant, Wojciech Deeg, is a Polish national who was born in 1981 and is currently serving a two year and three months’ sentence for robbery at a remand centre in Gdańsk. Relying on Article   6 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Mr   Deeg complains about the excessive length – ten years and seven months – of the criminal proceedings against him.   Mazgaj v. Poland (no. 41656/02) The applicant, Grzegorz Mazgaj, is a Polish national who was born in 1928 and lives in Włodawa (Poland). Accused of murder, Mr   Mazgaj was remanded in custody in June 2000. He was released in January 2001 and, subsequently acquitted, was granted compensation for unlawful detention in September 2005, as the courts recognised that the sole basis for his detention had been statements made by his mentally-ill son which could not be considered reliable evidence. Relying on Articles   5 (right to liberty and security) and   8 (right to respect for private and family life), he complains about his detention and, in particular, about restrictions on contact with his family during that time.   Santos Couto v. Portugal (no. 31874/07) The applicant, Mr Fernando dos Santos Couto, is a Portuguese national who was born in 1948 and lives in Lisbon. Relying on Article   6 (right to a fair trial) he alleges that he was wrongly convicted in criminal proceedings for homosexual activities with adolescents, and complains of the incorrect assessment of the evidence by the courts. On the basis of Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life) taken in conjunction with Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination), he argues that his conviction was discriminatory as it was based on his sexual orientation.   Băjănaru v. Romania (no. 884/04) The applicant, Ms Floarea Băjănaru, is a Romanian national who was born in 1935 and lives in Bucharest. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right of access to a court) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), she complains of the delay in enforcing final rulings in her favour concerning the recovery of possession of a plot of land. She relies also on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), complaining of the loss of earnings she sustained as a result of her inability to secure possession of the land.   Ballai v. Romania (no. 37188/06 ) The applicant, Mr Ştefan Ballai, is a Romanian national who was born in 1936 and lives in Cluj-Napoca. On 21 December 1989, during the anti-communist demonstrations in the city of Cluj-Napoca – which resulted in the death of 22   demonstrators with a further 79   seriously injured – the applicant’s son was shot and killed by members of the military. Following criminal proceedings instituted by the applicant in 1990, the officers in question received prison sentences for murder, which were upheld in 2006. Relying on Article   6 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Mr   Ballai complains that the length of the proceedings was excessive. He further complains, under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), that the amount of compensation awarded by the High Court of Cassation and Justice was insufficient and, under Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination), that he received less favourable treatment than the other civil parties.   SC Placebo Consult SRL v. Romania (no. 28529/04) The applicant, SC Placebo Consult SRL, is a Romanian company with its registered office in Craiova. Relying on Article   6 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicant company complains of the length of the proceedings it brought seeking an award of damages against another company, and alleges that the setting-aside of the final judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice by the High Court of Cassation and Justice infringed the principle of legal certainty and was in breach of its right to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1.   Marcos Barrios v. Spain (no. 17122/07) The applicant, Mr Manuel Angel Marcos Barrios, is a Spanish national who was a minor at the relevant time. He was born in 1984 and lives in León. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial), he complains of having been convicted of murder on appeal without a public hearing being held, after being acquitted at first instance. Under Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life), he complains that the evidence against him was obtained through a telephone tapping operation that had been declared null and void during the investigation stage. Relying on Article   6   §   3   (d), he complains, lastly, that he was unable to question witnesses and was convicted on the basis of insufficient evidence.   Polanco Torres and Movilla Polanco v. Spain (no. 34147/06) The applicants, Mrs Elisa Polanco Torres and Ms Emma Movilla Polanco, are two Spanish nationals who live in Santander. The second applicant is the daughter of the first and is acting on behalf of her father, C.M., who died in 1998. C.M. was President of the Civil and Criminal Division of the Cantabria Higher Court of Justice, before which criminal proceedings were in progress at the relevant time against the President of the Autonomous Community of Cantabria. In May 1994 an article in the newspaper El Mundo accused Elisa Polanco Torres of involvement in unlawful dealings with a company; the article also appeared the same day in the newspaper Alerta . Relying on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicants allege that in finding in favour of El Mundo the Spanish courts infringed their honour and good reputation. They also rely on Article   10   §   2 (right to freedom of expression – duties and restrictions) in this regard. They further allege a breach of Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken in conjunction with Article   8, on account of the fact that the amparo appeal lodged by El Mundo was allowed, whereas Alerta ’s appeal was dismissed. Lastly, relying on Article   6 (right to a fair hearing), they complain of the participation of the President of the Constitutional Court in a forum organised by El Mundo two months after the ruling given by that court.   Gülizar Tuncer v. Turkey (no. 23708/05) The applicant, Ms Gülizar Tuncer, a lawyer by profession, is a Turkish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Istanbul. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), she complains of the violence perpetrated by the security forces during the dispersal of a gathering held outside a post office in order to send postcards to women detained in F-type prisons [1] , and of the lack of an effective investigation in that regard. Under Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), she submits that she was unable to assert her allegations, as her complaint against the police officers resulted in a finding that there was no case to answer. Relying further on Articles   7 (no punishment without law), 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and   10 (freedom of expression), she alleges that she was prosecuted for actions which did not constitute an offence and that her freedom of thought and expression was infringed by the security forces’ intervention during her statement to the press. Lastly, she argues that her arrest and placement in police custody were in breach of Article   11 (freedom of assembly and association).   Ismail Altun v. Turkey (no. 22932/02) The applicant, Mr İsmail Altun, is a Turkish national who, at the material time, was in pre-trial detention in Bayrampaşa Prison (Istanbul) in the context of criminal proceedings against him for an attempted armed attack on the constitutional order. In December 2000 the security forces in Turkey intervened simultaneously in twenty prisons where prisoners had been on hunger strike in protest at plans to create F-type prisons with smaller living units. During the operation carried out in Bayrampaşa Prison, twelve prisoners died and around fifty were injured, some, like the applicant, by firearms. The prisoners erected burning barricades, among other things, and the clashes lasted for an entire day. Relying on Article   2 (right to life), the applicant complains of having been wounded by a bullet. Under Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he alleges that he did not receive the appropriate treatment for his injuries and that he was beaten and forced to shave off his hair when transferred to Edirne Prison. Relying further on Article   5 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6 (right to a fair trial), he complains of the length of his pre-trial detention and alleges that his lawyer was not informed of his state of health and was unable to visit him.   Tuksal and Others v. Turkey (nos. 57711/08, 59325/08, 59334/08, 59351/08, 60153/08, 60155/08, 60157/08, 60159/08, 60160/08, 60173/08, 60181/08, 60184/08, 60197/08, 60200/08, 60202/08, 60213/08, 60220/08, 60226/08, 61540/08, 61544/08, 61557/08, 61566/08, 61591/08, 1862/09, 1903/09, 1906/09, 2003/09, 2005/09, 2010/09, 2012/09, 2018/09, 2022/09, 3679/09, 10279/09, 13325/09, 16456/09 and 17955/09) The 37 applicants were employees of State-owned banks at the relevant time and were civil servants. In the context of the restructuring of State-owned financial institutions aimed in particular at privatising the banks in question, they were redeployed in various State bodies. Relying on Article   6 (right to a fair hearing), they complain that they were not informed in advance of the opinion of the public prosecutor at the Supreme Administrative Court during the administrative proceedings which they brought.   Üzer v. Turkey (no. 9203/03) The applicants, Mr Erdinç Üzer, Mr Ergin Üzer and Mr Baykal Üzer, are three Turkish nationals who were born in 1984, 1986 and 1979 respectively and live in Ankara. They rely on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) in relation to their detention in police custody – for the theft of electrical cables belonging to Turkish Telecom – during which confessions were allegedly extracted from them by means of violence, including truncheon blows and threats of rape. Under the same provision they further complain that the investigations into their allegations were ineffective.   Kay and Others v. United Kingdom (no. 37341/06) The applicants are eight British nationals and one Irish national who live in London. Their leases of housing units owned by the London Borough of Lambeth, which had been provided to the applicants by a charitable housing trust under a special scheme, were terminated in 1999. Relying on Article   8 (right to respect for private life), the applicants complain of the possession proceedings brought by Lambeth against them and of the fact that they were unable to challenge the possession orders.   Kevin O’Dowd v. United Kingdom (no. 7390/07) The applicant, Kevin Kenneth O’Dowd, is a British national who was born in 1946 and lives in London. A recidivist sex offender, Mr   O’Dowd essentially complains of the length of his pre-trial detention and the refusal of bail in criminal proceedings against him for rape, false imprisonment and indecent assault. He also complains that the relevant law under which he was refused bail unfairly discriminated against those with previous convictions for certain offences. He relies on Article   5   §   3 (right to right to liberty and security) and Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Szypusz v. United Kingdom (no. 8400/07) The applicant, Mr Simeon Szypusz, is a British national who was born in 1985 and is currently detained in Nottingham. Sentenced to 25   years in prison for attempted murder, he complains that the criminal proceedings against him were not fair, because a police officer responsible for operating video equipment was permitted to remain alone with the jury for almost two hours while they viewed important video evidence in his case. The applicant relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial).     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Turgay and Others v. Turkey (Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5) (nos. 13710/08, 16345/08, 19652/08, 21950/08, 23173/08, 23182/08, 23200/08, 29572/08, 55180/08, 55427/08, 56294/08, 60443/08, 61438/08, 32869/08, 35022/08 and 39904/08) These cases concern the applicants’ complaints about the suspension of the publication and dissemination of their newspapers, considered propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation, as well as the unfairness of the ensuing criminal proceedings brought against them. The applicants rely in particular on Articles   6 (right to a fair hearing) and   10 (freedom of expression).     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complain in particular under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. In the case of Mošať, the applicant also relies on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Conceria mandera SRL v. Italy (no. 3978/03) Pastuszenia v. Poland (no. 46074/07) Vasiliu v. Romania (no. 29248/04) Mošať v. Slovakia (no. 27452/05) Şenyürek and Şahin and 17 other applications v. Turkey (nos. 34986/05, 34987/05, 35070/05, 41921/06, 44922/06, 44959/06, 44979/06, 44983/06, 45016/06, 45069/06, 45096/06, 45100/06, 45115/06, 45127/06, 50158/06, 50159/06, 10878/07 and 24160/08)     Thursday 23 September 2010   Fragner v. Austria (no. 18283/06) The applicant, Arnold Fragner, is an Austrian national and a general medical practitioner. Relying in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), he complains that the Regional Appeals Commission, which examined his claim for fees submitted to an insurance board, was not independent or impartial, and that the proceedings in his case were excessively long.   Bousarra v. France (no. 25672/07) The applicant, Mr Issam Bousarra, is a Moroccan national who was born in 1978 and lives in Taza (Morocco). He arrived in France with his parents at the age of three weeks. He is unmarried and has no family. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), he complains of the decision to deport him to Morocco after he was sentenced in 2001 to five years’ imprisonment, of which one year was suspended, for a drugs-related offence, extortion, kidnapping and possession of an illegal weapon. Under Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), he alleges that he was unable to lodge an effective appeal against the deportation order.   Obst v. Germany (no. 425/03) The applicant, Mr Michael Heinz Obst, is a German national who was born in 1959 and lives in Neu-Anspach. He grew up in the Mormon faith and married in 1980 in accordance with Mormon rites. After holding various positions within the Mormon Church he was appointed to the post of European public relations officer in 1986. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), he complains of the refusal of the courts to overturn his dismissal without notice by the Mormon Church for adultery.   Schüth v. Germany (no. 1620/03) The applicant, Mr Bernhard Josef Schüth, is a German national who was born in 1957 and lives in Essen. He was the organist and choirmaster in the Catholic parish of St Lambert in Essen at the relevant time. Relying on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life), he complains of the refusal of the courts to overturn his dismissal with notice by his parish for engaging in an extra-marital relationship.   Aleksander Leonidovich Ivanov v. Russia (no. 33929/03) The applicant, Aleksander Ivanov, is a Russian national who was born in 1981 and is currently serving, in the Ryazan Region, a 17-year prison term for murder and theft for which he was convicted in April 2002. Relying in particular on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant complains about the conditions in which he was kept pending trial, and in particular about overcrowding.   Isayev v. Russia (no. 24490/03) The applicant, Andrey Isayev, is a Russian national who was born in 1978 and lives in Vladimir (Russia). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (access to a court), he complains that the composition of the trial court which sentenced him in 2002 to 20   years in prison for murder was not set up in accordance with the law as the term of office of the two lay judges who took part in it had expired before the start of his trial. Also relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), he alleges that the criminal proceedings against him have been excessively long.   Iskandarov v. Russia (no. 17185/05) The applicant, Mukhamadruzi (also spelled Mahmadruzi) Iskandarov, is a Tajikistani national who was born in 1954 and lives in Dushanbe, Tajikistan. He was one of the leaders of the political opposition in Tajikistan in the 1990s and moved to Russia in 2004. Arrested in Russia in December 2004 following an extradition request on charges of terrorism in Tajikistan, he was released in April 2005 only to be kidnapped a few days later by unknown men speaking unaccented Russian and flown, without a passport, to Tajikistan where he was handed over to Tajik law-enforcement authorities. Relying on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) and   5 (right to liberty and security), he complains that he was arrested unlawfully in April 2005 and that, as a result of his removal to Tajikistan, he suffered ill-treatment and persecution for his political views.   Vasilchenko v. Russia (no. 34784/02) The applicant, Petr Vasilchenko, is a Russian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Rostov-on-Don (Russia). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), he alleges that the courts have taken too long to examine his case in which he sought reinstatement to his job as an army colonel from which he was removed in 1998, as well as payment of salary and benefits, and compensation for damage resulting from his removal. Also relying on Article   6   §   1 and Article   Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), he alleges that the authorities delayed the enforcement, or did not enforce at all, judgments in his favour. Finally, relying on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains that he did not have an effective remedy to challenge the excessive length of the court proceedings or non-enforcement in his case.     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Davletkhanov and other “Chernobyl pensioners” v. Russia (nos. 7182/03, 10115/04, 21752/04 and 22963/04) Konenkova and other “privileged pensioners” v. Russia (nos. 59704/08, 59706/08, 59707/08, 59708/08, 59710/08, 59712/08, 59713/08, 59714/08, 59715/08, 59717/08, 59718/08, 59719/08, 59720/08 and 59721/08) Popova and other “Privileged pensioners” v. Russia (32310/08, 33191/08, 43100/08, 46454/08, 57961/08, 5517/09 and 10564/09) Tyrtova and other “Privileged pensioners” v. Russia (38126/08, 38341/08, 38345/08, 40593/08, 40596/08, 40598/08 and 45101/08) These cases concern the quashing of final domestic courts judgments in the applicants’ favour. They rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complain in particular under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. In the case of Yankov and Others the applicants also rely on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Yankov and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 4570/05) Antyushina v. Russia (no. 23204/03)     ***     Press contacts [email protected] / +33 3 90 21 42 08 Emma Hellyer (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 42 15) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone: + 33 3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up)in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Created under the new prison regime, with living units for one to three prisoners.